LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

Retention of implant‐supported overdentures at different implant angulations: comparing Locator and ball attachments

Photo from wikipedia

OBJECTIVES To assess the effect of implant angulation on the retention of two different attachment systems for implant-supported overdentures after a simulated fatigue period of 5.5 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS Two… Click to show full abstract

OBJECTIVES To assess the effect of implant angulation on the retention of two different attachment systems for implant-supported overdentures after a simulated fatigue period of 5.5 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS Two test set-ups were constructed. A two-implant mandibular implant-supported overdenture design was simulated using acrylic resin blocks to support implant replicas (Model 1 and Model 2). The replicas were set up in the canine regions (22-mm inter-implant distance). In Model 1, the implants were parallel (0° to the vertical axis) and in Model 2 they were divergent (20° to the vertical axis). The Locator and the ball attachment systems were tested at both set-ups. A simulated fatigue period of 5.5 years that equated to 10,000 cycles of insertion and removal of the denture was used. Retention values for each attachment system at each angulation set-up were measured at baseline, every 500 cycles until 4000 cycles and then every 1000 cycles. RESULTS After simulated fatigue, the retention for both systems at both set-ups reduced. The Locator system reduced from 108.9 to 20.2 N in the parallel set-up and from 82.3 to 17.3 N in the divergent set-up. For the ball system, the retention reduced from 56.2 to 46 N when parallel and from 45.7 to 40.7 N when divergent. CONCLUSION Both attachment systems showed a significant reduction in retention after simulated fatigue at both parallel and divergent set-ups. The change in implant angulation caused a significant reduction in retention for the ball attachment system only, although this was still higher at the end of testing than the Locator attachment system. The Locators also had a significantly faster rate of loss of retention at both set-ups. Clinically, this may indicate that the ball attachments may perform better with divergent implants.

Keywords: set ups; locator; ball; retention; implant supported

Journal Title: Clinical Oral Implants Research
Year Published: 2017

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.